Main menu

You are here

PS4 Backwards Compatibility

While backwards compatibility has been available in some shape or form as far back as the Atari 7600, it wasn't a feature gamers expected to find on their consoles; it was a bonus when it appeared but hardly mandatory. The PlayStation 2 changed that by being fully compatible with the entire PlayStation library barring a handful of games. We saw this trend continue with the Wii and, to an extent, the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, as enabling your system to be backwards compatible provided a large selection of games for your new console and encouraged developers to keep creating software for the previous hardware version. With the PlayStation 4, rumors swirled over whether or not Sony would provide backwards compatibility to past PlayStation consoles and now that the console is officially announced, we have our answer.

Disc-Based Compatibility
Sadly, Sony announced at the February 2013 unveiling of the PlayStation 4 that the console would not be compatible with any past PlayStation 1, 2 or 3 disc-based games. While this came as a shock, Sony does have a good reason for what some gamers are calling a huge mistake. The combination of the unique architecture of past PlayStation hardware releases, such as the Emotion Engine or the Cell Processor, and the fact that Sony is using “off the shelf” parts with the PlayStation 4 means that by default, the PlayStation 4 cannot play past PlayStation games properly. To natively play these games, Sony would have to add the older technology into the PlayStation 4, either compromising some of the features already present or raising the cost or the system. While gamers may lament the fact that backwards compatibility is not a part of the PlayStation 4, would you pay extra for it? Would you sacrifice some of the PlayStation 4 hardware in exchange for the ability to play past games?

The trade-off is for the best, as it's important for Sony to focus on the future rather than be shackled to the past. As you'll read later, this doesn't necessarily mean the PlayStation 4 may never be backwards compatible as Sony has a few tricks up its sleeve.

Downloadable Game and Content Compatibility
Disc-based games are only one part of the type of content the PlayStation 3 has received, with downloadable content, such as new levels, characters and stages and even full games being available for download via the PlayStation Store. However, none of this content will be available on the PlayStation 4 for the same reasons disc-based games are not compatible either. For many gamers, this has been a tougher pill to swallow. You'll always be able to play your disc-based PlayStation 3 games provided you have a working PS3, but what will happen to the digital content once Sony shuts off the servers? It costs money to host this content and it's not feasible to believe that Sony will host this content forever. Will these digital-only games be lost to the sands of time? Many of this content cost money as well, money that will most likely not be refunded should Sony remove the access to the games you paid for.

Sony has begun to address this issue since the launch of the PS4 by bringing certain digital games to the new platform. These titles include FlOw, Flower, Escape Plan, and Sound Shapes. In addition, many digital titles that have been released since the launch of the PS4 have been "cross-buy". This means that if you bought the game on the Vita or the PS3, you already own it on the PS4 and you can download the superior version without paying for it again. The same goes for the above mentioned titles and many other releases such as Tiny Brains, and SteamWorld Dig. As time goes on, we will most likely see more and more titles like these make the jump to PS4 with improvements and zero cost for those of us who already purchased them, or wish to play them on multiple Sony gaming systems.

The Upcoming release of PlayStation Now
As mentioned earlier, just because the PlayStation 4 doesn't ship with compatibility doesn't mean that it may never appear in the future. Sony has mentioned two routes they are looking into: emulation and streaming.

We've already seen PlayStation 2 games emulated on PlayStation 3 hardware, with games such as Bully and Grand Theft Auto III being released digitally for the system with other games like Metal Gear Solid 3 being released in disc form. With this approach, it's up to the developer and publisher to take the time to make their back catalog available for the PlayStation 4; while we'll see some games emulated, it will only be a fraction of the total library. Emulation may also present new glitches or bugs not present in the original release as well.

The option that Sony has confirmed to be going with is streaming, as mentioned at E3 2013. Confirmed at the beginning of this year, Sony announced a program called PlayStation Now. PlayStation Now is going to be a service available to PlayStation 4, PlayStation 3, Vita, Smart TV, Smartphone, and Tablet owners. The service acts a lot like Netflix, which pioneered home streaming for movies.

With PlayStation Now, you'll be able to instantly access titles across the aforementioned devices simply by logging into your PSN account. All of your saves will go with your, regardless of what devices you play on. The content will come straight to you via Cloud technology so you won't need to wait for it to download. It will be like watching a movie, only you're in control! This is the product of the Gaikai streaming technology that Sony purchased last year, and it's looking to be a great alternative to traditional backwards compatibility.

The first game available to stream on the service will be Naughty Dog's smash hit of 2013, The Last of Us. Beyond: Two Souls has also been named. The catalog will feature PS3 hits to start from what has been announced and will first be available on PS3 and PS4, with support for Vita and other devices coming soon there after. Pricing and subscription models have not been detailed, but it has been said that two options will be available. One is a subscription with all access to the games, while the other would offer a more À la carte option of renting the games on a single purchase basis.

Regardless of how they handle it, this service shows that Sony is not willing to let the timeless experiences of PlayStation 3 to fade into the folds of time. With PlayStation Now, we will have the capacity to relive those experiences not only on our PS4, but on most other devices we own. That alone sounds like a good deal to me.

Comments

it better have this function! its the psn network so everything should carry over into this system, cause if not, y are we paying now for content, that in due time, the very system we play it on will be obsolete.... what if I'm a PSN+ member for ps3, your gonna tell me i have to pay more for a psN4+ member? Don't do the comsumer dirty, after all, at the end of the day, we are the ones that put the food on your table!!!

I meant no such thing. Everything should carry over for example trophies and PlayStation Plus subscription. I was merely stating that PlayStation 3 games are playable if you purchase the backwards compatibility software.
Not everyone wants to have to pay for backwards compatibility, so the console should be cheaper and the backwards compatibility software a paid add-on for those who want it. Nobody loses out, in fact I'd say the consumer wins. With a cheaper console and if they want backwards compatibility they can pay for it and therefore Sony can afford to improve it in the long term.

Henry, though you have a valid argument, not everybody is a techie as me and you are. Parents buy these things for their children. If you're a consumer who doesn't care about backward compatibility then yes you do win; but if you're a parent who has a kid who wants the new console and it doesn't play any of the games that you spent hundreds of dollars for, you just wasted a lot of money. For the first several months a console has been released there aren't that many games out there. At best when a parent buys their kid a new Playstation they get 3 or 4 games. You also have about 25 to 30 games sitting by your PS3. When you sell games you don't get back for what you paid for. A parent typically doesn't know a thing about how a PS works so when your kid says, "mom, you have to get the "..." so I can still play my old games on the PS4" that's extra money they have to spend in their mind. If you want a smooth transition from an old console to the new one, backwards compatibility is an absolute must. A console can have the best graphics and the games can have the best gameplay, but if you don't stay true to the consumer; you'll have an amazing console that absolutely nobody is playing.

I agree with you on this. Also like the story mentioned, PS3 came out after Xbox 360 so not only did Xbox have a good head start on PS3, I also remember people making comments about how the PS3 was so much more expensive than the Xbox 360 and the picture quality wasn't much better. That was because the games that had just came out weren’t able to fully tap into the potential of what the PS3 could do. This in turn only boosted sales for Xbox. The usability in a system regardless of how old or new it is, especially with regards to the lack of new compatible games and accessories is very big deal and producing a system that can do it all is a major selling point. You are right, backwards compatibility is a must and if a product is good enough and does everything the consumer wants it to do; they will buy it regardless of the cost.

Do you think parents are the main consumer group buying this? For their children? NO, the main audience are tech savy adult peeps that get into the games and look at them as an investment. Add on's for backward compatibility should be available NO MATTER WHAT!

Personally, being a gamer like myself, I enjoy the nostalgia of playing older games. Not everyone would be comfortable having multiple systems of different generations of the same line. And yes the older games with their low graphics and sounds to this day and age are disappointing, but putting those games on a smaller handheld system only isn't any better. Growing up with siblings, who have impaired vision, who also enjoy those kind of games like I do, can't see anything on the small screen compared to a television. With all that being said, if Sony doesn't wish to make their systems 100% backwards compatible (dealing with the few issues with graphics and sound stated above), and do not want to lose the business of a good many consumers with this in mind, may want to think about revamping every game made in the past to current standards.

What I don't understand is the problem with backwards compatibility of PS3 games, I mean if the PS4 is probably going to use a Cell processor except with more SPE's included, why couldn't it just use those as hardware emulation for the backwards compatibility of PS3 games since they are the same architecture? Also I never owned a PS3 until Thursday, February the 2nd, 2012, it was the original 60GB PS3 (CECHA01) and I was glad to get it with its original packaging too for a steal, just $139.99 USD! The best aspect to it is that it offere me full backwards compatibility with all PS2 games that I currently own, I can't afford the new PS3 games, heck I managed to get only 2 PS3 games: Ratchet & Clank - All 4 One for just $14.99 and the original Motorstorm from 2007 for just $4.99, so all in all it was a great investment this is the first 7th generation console that I have ever owned that I've used for the first time and although I'm over 5 years late, I hope this platform lasts many years to come!

i think that all ps3s and ps4s should have backwards compatability. when the ps4 comes out i dont want to have to own both a ps3 and ps4 to play both games. i want to be able to play all of my games on 1 system. i dont want to see a ps5 noone can afford to have 500 game systems because unneccesarry upgrades. im perfectly happy with my ps3 and when ps4 comes out i might buy one. but im getting tired of HAVING to upgrade just to play my favorite games. if a new game comes out that i want to play i dont want to have to buy a new system just to play it. stop upgrading. ONLY upgrade when youve absolutely perfected EVERYTHING. when there is NO room for improvement then make your ps4 and then stop making more systems. until then leave well enough alone.

There is a possibility and a rumour going around that AMD is either:
a) making a CPU for the PS4
or
b) making a GPU for the PS4
or
c) making a SOC for the PS4
If any one of those three points is true, it is highly unlikely any chance of backward compatibility could ever possibly exist.
It's either nVidia and Rambus (and therefore Cell), or there is no way backward compatibility can exist.

I just heard a rumor that AMD is developing a setup that supports backwards compatibility. So, if that happens and the new PS4 does go the AMD way, we should still be set.
I also found a link that kind of discusses this topic and seems to claim that AMD can produce backwards compatibility. They are talking about the new Xbox though. With that said, I am sure if the new Xbox 720 is going to be backwards compatible, there is no way that Sony is going to leave this option out and chance loosing Playstation fans and consumers to its competition.
http://n4g.com/news/411024/amd-deal-for-xbox-720-makes-sense-for-backwards-compatibility/com
And here is a link talking more about Xbox 720 not only including backwards compatibility but also improving upon it.
http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/10/16/xbox-720-to-have-backwards-compatibility-with-bells-on/

I think it's fairly clear at the moment that Microsoft's "tight lip" with the Next Xbox hangs on one thing -
"Should we design an Xbox720 with exclusive and full backward compatibility, or not."
"We have Kinect 2.0 to think about here."
There is also the fact that Kinect is heading toward PC - and therefore x86.
If they do but they need the costing to support a powerful design, it would make sense to create two types of Next Xbox -
Type I - Casual Next Box
(backward compatible to Xbox360 and x6 the power = 1.5 Teraflops)
Type 2 - UE4-, CE3-level Next Xbox
(no backward compatibility but x10 the power = 2.5 Teraflops)
AMD's Trinity series of SoC chip designs (released in 2013) can achieve 1 Teraflop per 100watts, so that lends credence to the suggestion made here.
But you can't have a x86 AMD CPU in there for the Xbox Next without some kind of complication - which you really do not need.
With IBM's PowerPC7 architecture in there instead, or some form of it being in there from a Xbox360 point of view, it should retain RISC "non-x86" features.
And be much more powerful.
Casuals want backward compatibility.
The "High Flying Club" doesn't care for it.
Either way, there are 50 Million users on each end of that scale.
With all of the above, it has probably done the rounds at Microsoft and AMD a few times, and I really don't see two forms of Next Xbox.
Which is probably why you won't see anything until next year.

I agree with launching multiple types of systems. I think both Playstation, Xbox, and all other console systems could and should come in different options for people to choose from. If you think about it, the best products do like cars, appliances, and tools. Why not game systems.

I think this problem is more in line of x86 - or no x86.
Microsoft's Windows 8 uses ARM.
ARM is not x86. It's RISC.
Playstaiton is RISC.
Xbox360 is RISC.
Now all of a sudden, Sony announces an x86 architecture with likely RISC "DNA" in it?
That doesn't even make sense.
The only reason x86 even exists is it is a predominantly Server-based platform and Intel is as smart as the players at IBM. They both know what they're doing, and if any competition turns up, they have this dial they turn; it's called the "panic dial" - it goes from "who gives a crap" to "step on it with a boot and make it disappear".
However, Intel and AMD have a problem.
Power per Watt.
CISC x86 designs consume an absolute crap load of energy. And their only performance difference over RISC/ARM/et al is multi-Gigahertz frequencies.
RISC and ARM does not.
nVidia know this.
AMD know this.
They also know that merging RISC ARM into their GPU architecture can massively reduce Power per Watt and in turn, Performance per Watt, by a factor of x5 (outside of x86).
Technically, nVidia and AMD won't have GPUs that are designed for x86 architectures in the very near future; just hybrids - but the way the interconnect PCI-E bus works is that the GPU is completely independent of the x86 architecture.
But still, it's a complete waste of GPU compute performance on x86 architecture - it's what PC owners know that they also know about games console that worries them so much.
PC gaming is coming to an end.
Gabe Newell knows it - look at the insane push of the Steam Service that overrides any consideration for *NEW* PC game development. Their Source Engine is so old, I can't even recall when it was first developed.
And John Carmack knows it. IdTech5 is, and will remain, a technological disaster. It doesn't fit in with x86. Although it highly likely would with RISC/ARM. Isn't that interesting...
Epic know it. I mean what do they do? License their game engine? Anything else for for x86? No. Nothing
Crytek know it. Why? Because all PC gamers do is complain at them when their residual developements quite clearly show a "game console" bent.
Intel know it's happening too. Their Knight's Corner for the past few years has been waiting in the background ready for when every SERVER and EVERY GAME DEVELOPER, and Microsoft, give the big finger to x86 architecture. IBM will likely follow shortly after - but not before then; this will be explained later...
25 years is long enough to put up with little progress other than MEGAwatt platforms.
IBM's RoadRunner was predominantly RISC and IBM's Cell architecture being the first computer platform to break the PetaFLOP barrier against all other x86-based systems with x86 GPUs (and even other RISC systems).
The next step in compute evolution is there, it's just the likes of Intel bullying everyone that holds tradition in place for far too long. AMD is just a business that managed to get in there enough to compete.
IBM has something called the PowerXCell 8i that asbolutely thrashes any x86 CPU from Intel or AMD - and yet, they don't use it anywhere else.
I know why this is.
IBM does not want to upset the "x86 Apple-cart".
And so they focus on the game console with their PowerPC part (with Cell DNA in it). And not their revolutionary PowerXCell 8i part that makes a complete mockery of the most powerful commercial Intel CPU at this current time.
Multi-versions of Games consoles.
The only versions I can think of would be x86 and RISC versions.
It wouldn't be because one had a deficit over the other in terms of "affordable features".

HD quality sound and picture, can do 3d as well, so its not going to be much diffs in visible quality in games which are most important for us gamers, so imho compatibility between PS3 and PS4 is a must. EoS

I see your point and it is a good one however, backwards compatibility will always have its place for very good reasons. One of the reasons people upgrade to the new and improved electronics is so they can eliminate the old ones. However, when it comes to video games both new and old, it doesn’t matter how awesome they get, the legacy games will always have a place in the hearts of most gamers. That’s why a lot of people kept their PS2 and still buy PS2 games. Still, most people would rather have one system that does everything. That’s the beauty of a computer. Even though it gets better and better, there are still ways to get the older games and programs to work with a little time and know how. I can still play the first pc version of Tomb Raider on my brand new core I7 system running windows 7.
When PS3 first came out I couldn’t afford it and I wanted one bad. I am a huge Grand Theft Auto and Tomb Raider fan. I wanted a system that will allow me to play the entire of both series on one system along with all my other PS1 and PS2 games. The fact that the PS3 was able to do that is the reason I saved up my money so that I could afford to buy one. By the time I could afford a PS3, the new systems that were out did not have backwards compatibility so that reason alone made me not want one. I figured I already have a PS2 and I didn’t want to buy a second hand PS3 because you have no warranty and you never know what you’re getting so instead I bought an Xbox 360 which too had backwards compatibility issues but still offered it for most of the games that I cared about so I figured I could just live with that and get the rest of the GTA and Tomb Raider series along with any other games I wanted on Xbox 360.
A problem that popped up was that since some games are exclusive to certain consoles, some of the ones that were exclusive to the PS3 were ones I wanted to play. Thankfully a few months ago a friend of mine who had one of the first backwards compatible PS3's did what you did (got rid of all his older PS2 games) and bought a new PS3. He then sold me his old PS3 for a song (like $50.00) and it plays all my older legacy PS1 & PS2 games no problem. To be quite honest, the picture and sound quality in my opinion isn’t all that bad. I have a 60” Sony LCD with 5.1 surround sound and my PS3s connected via HDMI and I’m quite satisfied. Granted, the picture and sound quality doesn’t compare to the newer PS3 games but who cares. I mean you cannot expect an older generation game to look as good as a newer generation game no matter what you do so, get over it.
Getting to what you said about the cost as well as Sony and consumer expense, even the possible sacrifice of better gaming features pertaining to the CPU and GPU; you make a very valid point. However, it would be nice if Sony could offer two products, one PS4 with and one without backwards compatibility so that way those who didn’t care about backwards compatibility could have an awesome system and those who did want backwards compatibility could have it at a higher cost. Or, maybe Sony could go ahead and develop the PS4 without backwards compatibility allowing them to make it the best system in the world, but have an upgrade option as well, where the consumer would either special order upon purchase or send in their system to have this option added at their own cost including shipping.
For one thing, the fact that Sony didn’t have to make a direct up front financial investment into the system by adding backwards compatibility in the first place, would save them some money and allow them to develop and distribute a better system. Then as an option, if I chose to purchase backwards compatibility, all the expense would then fall to me and I would more than likely have no problem paying the extra money to have that option and I’m sure that a few others out there wouldn’t mind either. If not, then they didn’t spend any money for nothing. You do have a good idea about having legacy gaming be a part of PlayStation Plus. However, I already pay for X-box live and really don’t want to pay a second subscription charge. Instead, I would just rather pay one upfront cost for an added option of backwards compatibility on to my system and call it done.
By the way, if I sound long winded and seem to ramble on in my sentences, that’s the ADHD in effect LOL.

To be honest, I think PS4 doesn't need to innovate at all that was the problem with PS3: it was so vastly different to PS2 the developing for it has had it's many downfalls and the price of the system was massive. Sony needs to think more logical and be more like PC but allow BC too.
Sony needs to do what they did with the vita and make the system easy to develop for and porting would be fine. PS4 needs 500GB harddrive, 1GB of ram at least and a way better graphics unit and a slightly better CPU or upgraded cell processor and 4x speed blu-ray drive and they're in business as they wouldn't have to worry about installs.
PS4 heavily needs a better graphics card and at least 1GB of ram memory everything else they can fiddle around with. Backwards capable would still work with PS3 games and i think it definitely has a place as long as they follow the same hardware structure but make it easy to develop for.

The thing about it is if the PS4 isnt BC then they are going to be bored, for one theres nto going to be many games, and people have posses clans all that on ps3 games, take that away and theres no more fun, sure the ps4 looks badass but cmon now who like to play all alone

I really want backwards compatibility. I can't afford to get every next-gen console, so I never got a PS3. If there is backwards compatibility, I will be able to finally play the PS3 games I've wanted to get in addition to the PS4 releases.

I honestly think the statement that, "personally, I won't even play last generation console games anymore" is SO shallow. That's like saying, "golly, I won't even sit in the passenger seat of a 90s car!" I had more fun playing Resident Evil 1 on my PS3 than I had playing many, many, many PS3 games. It's just a silly supposition that graphics are the most important factor in a game. If it's not the graphics then what? The fact that it's "current". The fact is that some PS2 games were made AFTER some(some) PS3 games. So which one is "last generation?"

I agree with you on this one. It’s bad enough that in order to play a lot of games you have to buy and own multiple different consoles like Xbox, Playstation, Wii, etc. But to have to own multiple of the same console just to be able to play your favorite last gen games is ridiculous.

Your right it is shallow thinking. Infact this whole article was a joke.
The writer needs to go and buy over 450 PS3 titles at first run cost. and then tell me its just ok to toss those out for ps4 only.. Not having BC would be nuts. It would also make having dlc from psn now worthless. and it would also make trophies worthless. I would consider trading my ps3 games and 4 systems in to whoever offers current generation bc in next generation.

As a player and a parent of little players...We have grown up with play station 1, 2, & 3. We purchased alot of games when the PS1 came out, and we loved it, and then the PS2 came out and again, we purchased alot of games, but the reason why we purchased the PS2 is because Any and all games made by Sony is considered an "Investment" by kids and parents. Why scrap all those games??? So we purchased PS2 because it played PS1 as well... We purchased the PS3 for this reason as well...We were bummed out because we have developed quite a collection of games over the years....I hope the PS4 will play "EVERYTHING" ...WHY? No other system will do this... Game systems are expensive these days and a customers hard earned money should count for something...Why make someone purchase the next generation system, and then Re-purchase the Games which are also expensive... THINK OF IT!!! THE SYSTEM THAT DOES EVERYTHING!!! Everybody would want one! I would purchase the PS4 that played everything TOMORROW simply because I could take it home...open it...and play games...Then I could purchase new generation games being on a limited income these days...More competitive with the up and down economy this way.

I think that ps4 should have backwards capability. I have a lot of ps3 games that I wouldn't be able to play if I traded in my ps3, and got a ps4. I don't like how Sony is trying to force us to toss our old games and just re buy them on ps4 and download them on the system. I wouldn't mind downloading them if I can get them for free on psn. For an exchange for the sameones I own. But that waste a lot of memory on the system the only way I would do that is if Sony put a 1tb memory on their and then I wouldn't have to worry about the memory.

Consoles are dead. Any decent Console game goes to PC. World of Warcraft by Blizzard has made more money than sells of PS3 consoles combined. Sony will make a PC computer to hook up to your PC, and that's the end of consoles. Software developers will make games for intel chip PC and the Cell Processor is dead. 9 cores? 3.0 ghz? come on. Who wants to buy a PS3 or XBOX 360 thats going to burn out in three years? Not me and not you.

you padre are a dumbass game consoles are very far from dead, with the wii 360 and ps3 alone its over 100 million gamers worldwide an thats not counting handhelds its more prefernce on console type. I play games on all formats an use my pc for wow an swtor an consoles for GOW, MW, FF etc most console games do go to the pc first but thats nothing new its not as if most gamers don't know this so try to understand its PREFERENCE as yours is obviously PC. An you might be suprised considering your a dumbass but there will be a PS4 an a new xbox and a new Wii cause hey suprise suprise theres a HUGE demand for them!!!!

i actually laughed at this. hell im still laughing while writing. the only good thing about pc gaming is that it can be pirated and frankly there has been multiple times when i have had a choice between a free game on a pc and a 100$ game on the ps3 and i chose the ps3, and thats saying something because im unemployed. pc gaming is like playing in the women's league.

three years? i have the fat PS3 from 2007 and it runs just fine, i have all the newer games, it doesn't even freeze on crysis 2 which has been known to fry peoples pc's. Im guessing you own a pc and a ps3 and hell probably an a Xbox, but for you to say console gaming will be diminished is just crazy, the ONLY game ill play on PC is Gary's mod and sometimes Empire Earth, I'm sorry but your own logic is incorrect and just makes me want to go into best buy and ask everyone what they play on, pc pr console? that will give you answers. your faulty so please just leave.

The PC gaming market has always been smaller than that of consoles.
Not saying I wouldn't love to build a PC and play some games on that.
My current laptop is used to play minecraft, played WOW for a while on it but I got incredibly bored of the samey content and missions that seem to do the same thing over and over again.
Personally I don't understand why it has such a large userbase, but it's by no means ground breaking or one of many like it, it's a one off and by no means isn't something a console couldn't do with an online RPG if it was marketed as much as WOW has been.
BTW I've had my PS3 since the day after release, it's still working and lives in a pretty dusty environment.
I've had my Xbox 360 for what has to be more than 3 years and it's working fine.
To claim that consoles are dead when the user base is still massive is rubbish, it's an opinion based on no facts.
Consoles are far more accessible to the public because of their lower costs over equivalent specced PCs.
The GHz figure has nothing to with the power of the processors, everyone who knows anything about speed knows there's a ceiling (which has essentially been met) and what matters is how many flops hardware can shift.
If Sony goes for a straight up quad core version of their cell, manufactured at 20nm then a 4 PPE, 8 SPE per cell unit could easily reach 2.4 TFlops, which would be enough to make for a console 12 times more powerful than the PS3 (if the cell is all it has), which means the console will easily run games at 1080p and high frame rates with high amounts of effects, if they shove in a couple of GPUs with a APU variation of the cell, with a decent mid level AMD GPU PS4 could easily rocket to well in excess of 4 TFlops (which is apparently what developers are asking for from reading articles), all they'd need to do is add a sufficient power supply, maybe 2GB of ram for the APU and put 2GB of GDDR6 for the GPU plenty of cooling and this console will be incredibly powerful and given that Sony will likely buy all of the parts for a fraction of their consumer cost they'll get it to consumer for a reasonable price that an equivalent PC of a similar spec would cost many times the price.
Rumours are even saying the PS4 could have a SOC (system on chip), even 4 SPEs per cell would mean at least 1.2 TFlops, AMD supplosedly being the partner may add the chip from the 7970, downgrade it slightly to use less wattage and make an APU with at least 1.8 TFlops of power or 9 times the power of the PS3, even with a 3rd of the power of the 7970 the PS4 could have 2.4 TFlops of power in the APU alone, an additional GPU for whatever spec Sony feels is necessary will boost things further and given that almost every ounce of power can be put to use in games means this system would have no problem running the most demanding games of the time at 1080p, with ultra PC settings with high frame rates and because developers will be coding for a specific system they can make games look amazing.
The idea that consoles are dead is stupid.
Consoles can now do things PCs do, they're muscling in on PC territory and obviously you feel threatened by that for some reason.
Of course nobody knows exactly what specs the next generation of consoles will have, but it's not hard to imagine Sony even manufacturing a hexcore cell, building everything in house and lowering production costs, they already have the factories to make them, if they built a dual quad core 20nm cell with ram stacked inside, it could have 4.8 TFlops so long as they add a strong enough PSU and a good amount of cooling there won't be any problems even in a case the size of PS3.
Put a small SSD (with a minimum of 16, maybe 32 gigs) in the system for OS, system updates and quick game loading and that'd speed things up, along with a 12x Bluray drive.
A regular Hard Drive with at least 120GBs of space for permanent saves and other storage and make it easy to upgrade if needed in the future.
Speculation's fun anyway, but it's safe to say Consoles aren't dying any time soon, they'll be around for the feasable future.

I agree that consoles aren't dead but what you failed to realize is that what you just basically makes the console a PC without all the extra uses. If they put that much man power and material into the consoles to make it work while keeping the life span that consoles have then you might as well by a PC. I own a console as well as a PC. You say that consoles are starting to muscle in on PC's territory you are right and wrong at the same time. PC's will always have better visuals because of DirectX, and being able to use more then one piece of hardware. The advancement of computer hardware grow so quickly that an amazing computer from two years ago is now sub par. Not all of PC gaming is pirated. Even if you get a game like BF3 or Black Ops 2 you still need to have a CD-key to be able to play online and it's traceable. Another thing that PC's can do are mods. Look at Hal-Life and Half-Life 2. Just from that base game and engine there have been hundreds of games, game types that have been created. And what happens if your console fries? You get to spend another $300 on a new one versus $100 for a new cpu, $60 for a tera bite hard drive. To the person who says that pc gaming is the women's league, have you ever played online on a computer? People to crazy stuff the more precise aiming, better button layouts, and responses. Oh and one more thing, you do realize that games for consoles are created on a computer right? I love my consoles, as well as computer, so I'm not saying that consoles suck, but don't dis PC's when all it really is just another form of gaming. Personaly the real debate would be which console is better

I still have the original fat PS2, so it's over 10 years old, and it works like brand new save the disc tray creaking a bit. I also have a fat DS that also works perfectly fine. My old N64 also plays perfectly fine with original cords. And that's with very minimal basic care (i.e. not stepping on it or tossing it and its accessories around) in a dusty house. Every console in my home (I have one of everything) are all first gens, and they all work perfectly.
If your consoles are constantly burning out after 3 years max, you either need to start buying your consoles from other stores, or stop treating them like trash. You wouldn't chuck accessories for your computer, why do that with a game controller (just as an example). Laptop computers these days die out way faster than consoles ever do.

@anonymous Consoles dead compared to pc gaming? You are an idiot. Console gamers BUY their games PC players pirate them. Basic maths states that you cater for the customers who actually pay. This is why more and more PC games are just console variants. Simply google the games released to torrent sites such as the Crysis 2 scandal. Do you think Crytek went through all that effort with Cryengine running on console for nothing?! Devs KNOW where the money comes from and it's nowhere near the PC market. Warcraft is catered specifically for pc gaming and is a controlled revenue environment ie subscriptions. Don't be stupid and assume that the audience figures for that reflect all PC gaming. How many people have a PC and a console? Both primary consoles ps3 and Xbox have a around 70,000,000 users each and only a significant minority pirate. The rest pay $50 - $120 a game unlike the lower prices for the same game on pc as fewer people purchase new. Get it? If devs could code using a console directly there wouldn't even be a pc variant of most games.
Oh and I agree with backwards compatibility as a paid add on. It should at least be optional. I have both consoles but I will discard the one that doesn't give me bc as an option. I've not paid for DLC, extensive libraries etc just to throw it all away. I also refuse to ignore the fact that DLC cost me more on top. If it isn't catered for next gen I expect a class action lawsuit. I refuse to have old hardware cluttering up my house, we need iOS type approach. Generic opsys carries over generations of hardware meaning most things remain compatible.

Anyone else think this sounds like it's coming from Sony trying to turn us against backwards compatibility? when it comes down to it a real gamer doesn't care if one game has lower graphics than another. Personally I would trade in all 40 of my ps3 games to have kingdom hearts on ps3. I still have to get my crappy ps2 out with it's ripped up cords and broken buttons just to play it. When it comes down to it there is some games that simply cannot be surpassed hell I still play my old ps1 games. For me graphics don't matter, a good game is a good game and the company that takes that into consideration is going to be the one I support, I almost went to xbox after the backwards combat stopped being produced in ps3 and if ps4 can't support ps3 games then I will have no reason to clutter my shelves with another console coz as it is I already have 4 different consoles, if a new console could allow me to get rid of even one of those I'd gladly pay double for it.

This is the first comments on such things I read. I can deal with this if it's practical in price & not an overshoot for profit. My only concern is if "Sony" will over do the accessories & prices like "Nintendo" with "N64" did with Expansion packs, rumble packs, & the unreleased Japan only duel system extension to play more games. Let's face it, N64 was a huge thought out ployed to exploit the new gaming world with over accessorizing & lack of practicality. If you grew up with "N64" you'll know what I'm talking about. However, it is safe to say that all companies do this; but I am just making the point to not overkill & saturate the market with overpriced & abundant accessories like "N64".
In short, I am all for the add on, just make it a one shot deal that will do all the games, & keep the cost fair...
Adrien E.

Ummmm... seems that Sony is forgetting one thing... us pesky people called the consumer. It also seems that they aren't learning from Microsoft's mistake with Vista and the reason why many people are still using WinXP.
See, some of us have a considerable investment in older games, and some of those games are still quite enjoyable. Who is Sony to tell us what kind of games we are supposed to like and what they consider to be ugly?
I'm also more that a little offended about Sony's latest stance about buying used games... I understand that it is still a rumor, but even at that I say that Sony needs to make a statement one way or the other. In case the suits at Sony hasn't noticed, many countries around the globe are having substantial economic problems, even here in the good ole U.S. of A. Will CNN now reporting over 80 million invisible unemployed, it's not like people are going to have the funds to purchase new $60 games at the drop of a hat. Frankly, even in the best of times, there are many games out there that simply aren't worth the price of the DVD they were burned on. Many of us rely on being able to sell used games to help afford new ones, or buying older titles at a discount to allow our gaming budget to go further. I do understand Sony's need to recoup their investment and make a profit, but this comes across too much as a "Let them eat cake" attitude.
Basically if this is going to be Sony's stance towards the consumer, i.e. a callous disregard for our needs and situations and demand that we spend top dollar on only the latest games, they can consider me a lost customer.
You see Sony, backwards compatible or not, used games or not, we are the people who buy your products and make your continued employment/existence possible. You may wish to reconsider this bad attitude you are taking towards your customers and actually listen to what it is that we want.

100% agree.
although $60 for a new game - thats cheap.
when new games are released in New Zealand, they can be over $100 - good luck finding enough money for the console and games at this price.
without the backwards compatibility PS3 was not worth buying and would rather buy a 2nd hand PS2.

Just forget it people. They don't care about us having BC. They don't care. They don't care. The just want you to spend money and then die broke.
The solution for them is simple. Make two versions. One BC and the other not. The one that's BC, charge $200 MORE for it. That way the consumer pays for the BC development costs if they want it. I'm guessing they would sell at least as many BC models as they would non-BC models.
But as I said, they don't care. Why? Because some money crunching marketing retard will run a bunch of fake numbers and say to his/her bosses at sony that BC is not worth it. So then, with fake numbers in hand, the idiot boss at sony will say, "NO BC!" They think it won't be worth it so they won't put it in and they WON'T CARE WHAT THE CONSUMER WANTS!!
Sadly, what they will fail to realize is that if they take care of the consumer, then the consumer will take care of them.
P.S.
To Sony: God damn you if you do not put USB 3.0 ports in that thing.

agreed.
If you aren't going to look after your loyal consumers who have spend heaps of money buying your products and games over the years - you don't deserve to have them!!!
for a lot of people BC is something they want - when a PS2 (and soon PS3) console dies unexpectadley, they are faced with losing every game they have and still enjoy playing simply becuase Sony don't find it nessaccary to allow BC on their consoles.
TAKE NOTE SONY
LISTEN TO YOUR CONSUMERS - WITHOUT THEM YOUR BUSINESS AND BOTTOM LINE WILL SUFFER.
WE WANT BACKWARDS COMPATIBLITY. WE DON'T WANT TO SHELL OUT FOR CONSOLS AND GAMES THAT WE CAN'T KEEP PLAYING SIMPLY BECUASE YOU CHOSE THAT WE DON'T WANT TO.
IF MICROSOFT CAN LOOK AFTER US BETTER WE WILL DEPART.
GOOD BYE AND GOOD BUYING!!!

I really dislike people (who call themselves "gamers" but I have my doubts) that believe that the newer products are always going to be better. I had played PS2 games that were so crappy I went back to my PS1 games until I could afford something that was actually worth my money. Visual eye candy will always take a backseat for me when compared to game play. If there is no game play involved than I couldn't give a crap about how awesome the graphics look. For example if they made an HD upgrade of the Barbie the video game's graphics (an old 1991 NES title for those of you too young to remember) I'm sure the graphics would be outstanding but the game play would be boring as all hell. *Note the original Barbie game for NES has been rated one of the worst games ever made, period.
The point I'm trying to make is that not all gamers will discard their previously owned titles just because their is a new console on the market. So why not carter to those die hard gamers and allow them to continue playing the very same game that games that already enjoy all on the same console?

Ok, so you're saying the PS4 shouldn't be BC. That's liek if Microsoft made it to where if you upgrade from 2000>XP.Vista>7>8>Etc you can't use any games/programs that were usable on the previous OS. Say you want to play COD2, it was made for XP, but you go ahead and get Vista/7/8, you can't play it anymore because the newer OS won't work for it. You'd either have to downgrade or get an older computer. It's kinda like with damn cellphones, almost every new model made by the same company, the charger from the older model won't work with the new ones, so you have to pay MORE money for a compatible charger. See where I'm coming from?

I have a lot of PS 2 games, games that I have barely touched the surface of playing. I still want to play them, but due to life and other commitments etc I get to play maybe once or twice a month.
Just because there is a new shiney concole it doens't take away my old games. True, my PS 1 games are rubish and are free to a good home.
However as I am not a "hardcore gamer" and am just playing for pure entertainment value, I don't care as much about the graphics and sound quality.
I undersand that BC is an issue and not cost effective in a new console. But as a way to get extra $$ from consumers, how about a plug in device, or optional system upgrade that you can purchase to have full backwards compatibility. For some people it would definatley be worth the extra $$.
When my husband and I looked to buy a new console this year, (we had PS2 and Xbox - yes we are a bit out of date) we went for Xbox 360 connect simply becusae of the BC. It was the deciding factor - we have games that we still enjoy playing and didn't want to spend money buying a new concole and then have 1 game to play until we could buy more that we liked.